Law's Top 100

[BobDylanBundy]

This is counter-intuitive to me for a host of reasons. I'll let others hash it out

Not a bad strategy, haha

[DrungoHazewood]

Yes, you can easily argue many theories about player strategies in that era, and the statistics definitely show they were pitching to contact. However, that still does not escape the relevant points: these pitchers were throwing 100+ pitches per start on less than 4 days rest for 40-50 starts per season without getting hurt.

They were definitely getting hurt. No doubt about that. We just remember the handful of guys who ran the gauntlet but survived.

Innings limits do nothing except prevent the opportunity for injury (at the expense of production/utilization). With the proper training, conditioning, and mechanics, there's no reason why a pitcher's 250th IP needs to be any more 'dangerous' than their 100th. The pitchers at the turn of the 19th century proved it, and Mr. Dylan Bundy shall reteach us their example.

Pitchers at the turn of the 19th century proved that some pitchers, given the right circumstances (including vastly inferior competition, batters who were taught to put the ball in play at all costs, battered soggy baseballs, legalized spitballs, 500+ ft fences) could throw vast numbers of innings.

It's a radically different game today. Put Jeremy Guthrie in 1900 and he's throwing 400 innings a year. But put Kid Nichols in 2011 and he'd be lucky to start 35 games and throw 230 innings.

[Frobby]

Reminds me of Kerry Wood's high school having him pitch BOTH games of an important doubleheader right before being drafted....and ultimately getting sued by the Cubs....If I recall correctly...

That would be an extremely frivolous lawsuit.

[Can_of_corn]

Yes, you can easily argue many theories about player strategies in that era, and the statistics definitely show they were pitching to contact. However, that still does not escape the relevant points: these pitchers were throwing 100+ pitches per start on less than 4 days rest for 40-50 starts per season without getting hurt.

Innings limits do nothing except prevent the opportunity for injury (at the expense of production/utilization). With the proper training, conditioning, and mechanics, there's no reason why a pitcher's 250th IP needs to be any more 'dangerous' than their 100th. The pitchers at the turn of the 19th century proved it, and Mr. Dylan Bundy shall reteach us their example.

Lots of them were getting hurt, hence the short career length. They just didn't have proper diagnostics to tell what the injuries were.

[weams]

He posted this also

Baltimore Orioles
Right-hander Parker Bridwell was a late bloomer in his senior year of high school after coming straight from the basketball court to the mound, but is now earning comparisons to A.J. Burnett (on pure ability, that is). He is athletic with a good delivery and feel for his age, showing three above-average to plus pitches but not doing it consistently yet.

[BobDylanBundy]

It's a radically different game today. Put Jeremy Guthrie in 1900 and he's throwing 400 innings a year. But put Kid Nichols in 2011 and he'd be lucky to start 35 games and throw 230 innings.

I do agree Kid Nichols would certainly be on stricter IP limits today, and you'd probably be safe pitching Jeremy Guthrie for more starts/innings as well. Your continued insistence on this example as if it's somehow relevant leads me to believe you're completely misinterpreting my point (probably due to poor communication from my end).

The point is *not* that the late 19th century pitchers were superior to the arms of today. In fact, I think it's safe to say they were significantly inferior - Americans are physically larger, strength training is now a huge part of the game, and we know more about pitching and mechanics.

This really takes my point one step further: "inferior" pitchers were able to sustain the much heavier workloads. Poor mechanics, poor conditioning, overexertion, and lack of muscle development cause injuries. IP limits on SP's with low risk factors (such as Jeremy Guthrie and Dylan Bundy) accomplish nothing except lowering the utilization from your top pitchers. High workloads - particularly at levels safely achieved by pitchers in the past - are just misdirection. Pitching injuries are the result of cause not quantity.

Pitchers at the turn of the 19th century proved that some pitchers, given the right circumstances (including vastly inferior competition, batters who were taught to put the ball in play at all costs, battered soggy baseballs, legalized spitballs, 500+ ft fences) could throw vast numbers of innings.

Vastly inferior competition? Let's see... more runs scored, more base runners, more steals, fewer K's. We can continue to randomly guess at the actual talent levels, but in terms of factual results the offense was vastly superior.

And the 1890's were just one example because the pitching came against one of the most dominant offensive eras in baseball history. If you want SP's pitching in environments closer to today's game, there were healthy 300+ IP starters in every decade leading up to the 5-man rotations. To name a few: Bob Feller (40's), Robin Roberts (50's), Gaylord Perry (60's), Phil Niekro (70's).

With that said, I want to make it clear that I'm respectful of the fact that you have a history of over 25,000 messages on this forum while I'm working towards my 25th. I've found some of your assertions in this thread to be questionable and have chosen to post contrary opinions - but in no way do I want to give the impression that I'm ignorant or unappreciative of your status in this community.

Lots of them were getting hurt, hence the short career length. They just didn't have proper diagnostics to tell what the injuries were.

Quite a few large assumptions in that statement, but I'll leave it up to someone else to hash them out.

[MurphDogg]

Vastly inferior competition? Let's see... more runs scored, more base runners, more steals, fewer K's. We can continue to randomly guess at the actual talent levels, but in terms of factual results the offense was vastly superior.

If the Orioles GCL team scores more runs per game over the course of a season than the Orioles do, does that mean that the GCL team is superior? Are these results any less factual?

[DrungoHazewood]

And the 1890's were just one example because the pitching came against one of the most dominant offensive eras in baseball history. If you want SP's pitching in environments closer to today's game, there were healthy 300+ IP starters in every decade leading up to the 5-man rotations. To name a few: Bob Feller (40's), Robin Roberts (50's), Gaylord Perry (60's), Phil Niekro (70's).

With that said, I want to make it clear that I'm respectful of the fact that you have a history of over 25,000 messages on this forum while I'm working towards my 25th. I've found some of your assertions in this thread to be questionable and have chosen to post contrary opinions - but in no way do I want to give the impression that I'm ignorant or unappreciative of your status in this community.

I don't care a bit about experience of posters. If you have good ideas you get respect, and you seem to be handling yourself just fine.

I just think you've under-estimated the impact of some seismic shifts in how baseball is played today, compared to even 30 years ago. Today every player throws as hard (or at least is giving near 100% effort) on every pitch. They're giving everything to get every batter out, 1-9 in the lineup. And they're expected to do that and then come out in the 6th or 7th inning so another guy can come in and throw even harder for 15 or 20 pitches. Not only that, but the fact that teams have large investments tied up in these players means they're more risk averse.

I'm sure a small handful of pitchers could still throw 300+ innings a year in today's environment. But the process to identify those pitchers would necessarily mean sacrificing dozens who couldn't, since that process would still involve having pitchers throw 300 innings and see what happens.

While baseball is often inefficient and occasionally uses counter-productive strategies, in the long term history arcs towards progress. It would be rather amazing if teams took generations to realize the more than century-long trend towards shorter outings was a massive mistake. If that trend is ever reversed it'll probably be because biomechanical analysis and medicine has progressed to the point where we can ID the truly durable arms, and medicine can do unprecedented things to fix the ones that aren't.

[paulcoates]

Did Bobby do the same regimen that Dylan does? Has Bobby ever had an injury?

While I agree that strengthening those muscles better support the shoulder, I don't know that I necessarily agree that you are just as likely to get hurt at Inning 250 as Inning 100. While it sounds like Dylan doesn't go 100% on every pitch, a 162 game season is a long grind nad over the course of the season, every player wears down. I don't doubt that is probably the #1 pitcher in our system as far as training and arm conditioning, but the longer you are on the mound, the more tired you get. Unless Dylan is Superman, I'd say longer exposure, by default leads to increased risk.

[DrungoHazewood]

Unless Dylan is Superman, I'd say longer exposure, by default leads to increased risk.

To get to 250+ innings you have to be pitching deep into games all the time, nobody is going to a 4-man rotation. And one thing almost everyone agrees on is that pitching on a tired arm with deteriorating mechanics is a huge red flag, huge injury risk. Given 35 starts there has to be more risk throwing 250-300 innings than 200. Unless you're going to argue the pitcher in question is always throwing with the same velocity, mechanics, effort in the 9th that he is in the 1st. Since that's not true for any current MLB pitcher, I'm not going to believe it until I see it.

[Frobby]

It is harder to pitch successfully now than it was when I was growing up. The next time MASN shows a game from the 1970 World Series, just watch the game and you will see what I mean. The strike zone was much, much bigger, and batters had to protect themselves with 2 strikes to a much greater degree. It's actually comical to watch some of the stuff batters swung at. The smaller the zone, the more pitches get thrown, the harder it is to make the batters miss, the harder it is to induce weak contact, and the more effort you have to put into your pitches. It is pretty evident if you just watch one of these old games.

[DrungoHazewood]

It is harder to pitch successfully now than it was when I was growing up. The next time MASN shows a game from the 1970 World Series, just watch the game and you will see what I mean. The strike zone was much, much bigger, and batters had to protect themselves with 2 strikes to a much greater degree. It's actually comical to watch some of the stuff batters swung at. The smaller the zone, the more pitches get thrown, the harder it is to make the batters miss, the harder it is to induce weak contact, and the more effort you have to put into your pitches. It is pretty evident if you just watch one of these old games.

I've long had a suspicion that MLB and the umps had a handshake agreement to shrink the strike zone, or at least not put it back where the rulebook defined it, because they knew strictly enforcing a knees-to-shoulders zone with everybody throwing hard all the time would result in offense cratering. And taking attendance with it.

A young Daniel Cabrera with shoulder high strikes = Dick Radatz.